Clinical and statistical approaches to the assessment of brain damage in children.

In an attempt at innovation in the clinical versus statistical prediction controversy, the present research examined three methods of assessing organic brain damage in a sample of sixty-eight 9- to 14-year-old children. Methods compared were clinical judgment (CP); existing actuarial norms (EAN); and derived statistical prediction (DSP), based on three psychological tests. The results were as follows: (a) None of the methods classified subjects significantly better than chance (p<.05); (b) there was no significant difference (p<.05) among the methods in terms of their rates of accurate classification; (c) CP based on combined tests did not result in higher predictive accuracy than those based on an individual test; (d) CP made after receiving feedback on accuracy showed an increase in number of correct classifications over prior CP; and (e) CP based on knowledge of the statistical prediction in addition to test data showed a higher rate of correct classification than DSP alone.